|
Pros
|
Cons
|
|
Effect on function of financial management system is a concern. |
|
Financial management system database administration should be performed by an employee as opposed to a contractor due the sensitive nature of the financial and personnel records maintained. |
|
It is most efficient for a single staff member to maintain financial management system for both offices. |
|
Major changes to financial management system configuration are difficult to perform on trial basis. |
| Would provide good training for office B information technology staff. |
Considerable effort would be required to create a separate Oracle database instance for office A financial management system and perform migration of database records. |
| Might improve response time for office A users. |
|
| Would provide clear division of responsibility for financial management system database administration between offices. |
Office B does not presently have sufficient staff to cover Oracle DBA requirements for financial management system. |
|
Unix workstation at office A might require hard disk upgrade to host financial management system. |
|
Implications of accepting
|
Implications of rejecting
|
| Each office commits fully to an irreversible change. |
No concern about functioning of financial management system. |
| Each office assumes full responsibility for its own financial management system. |
Office A and office B share responsibility for, and costs associated with, a joint financial management system. |
| Makes it easier to transfer main server to office B
(see proposal 3). |
Main server remains a joint resource of offices A and B. |
